New legal development/Judge's Ruling on Dina vs. Jonah
"SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2013-009289 03/19/2014
Docket Code 926 Form V000A Page 1 & 2
CLERK OF THE COURT HONORABLE DEAN M. FINK S. Brown Deputy DINA MARIE MARIE SHACKNAI LUIS P GUERRA DAVID CAREY SHAPIRO v. JONAH SHACKNAI, et al. WILLIAM J MALEDON DAVID B ROSENBAUM
UNDER ADVISEMENT RULING
Following oral argument on March 10, 2014, the Court took under advisement the Rule 12(B) Motion to Dismiss of Defendants Jonah Shacknai and Jonah Shacknai 1999 Revocable Trust or, Alternatively Motions to Strike and for Definite Statement. Upon further consideration,
the Court finds as follows.
Plaintiff’s complaint is inadequate even under Arizona’s notice pleading rules. There are simply too many gaps to allow the Court to do anything more than speculate about hypothetical facts that might entitle her to relief. That the Court cannot do. Cullen v. Koty-Leavitt Ins. Agency, Inc., 216 Ariz. 509, 515 ¶ 12 (App. 2007), aff’d in relevant part sub nom. Cullen v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co., 218 Ariz. 417, 420 ¶ 14 (2008).
In particular, an allegation that Mr. Shacknai was negligent in leaving young Maxfield with the Misses Zahau does not state a claim for wrongful death unless, at a minimum, his being left with them resulted in his wrongful death. Paragraph XXII of the complaint alleges in a conclusory manner that Maxfield’s being left with the Zahaus “caus[ed] catastrophic brain injuries, spinal cord injuries and other severe injuries,” but offers no clue as to how, an omission not remedied by the frequent dark hints (themselves unsupported by pled facts) about the Zahaus’ “violent propensities.” There is no suggestion at all in the complaint as to what the trust did or failed to do, or on what ground its joint and several liability is based. (The same is true of the two corporate defendants.)
At the same time, there are many paragraphs having no possible relevance to this case, such as those alleging some form of respondeat superior; the Court is particularly curious about the “rules, regulations and manuals, and generally accepted policies and procedures” that govern parenting (paragraph XXVII).
And the complaint’s overindulgence in the colorful leads at paragraph XXXIII to bemusement (what are the “regular child duties” performed by a six-year-old of which Plaintiff has been deprived?) and confusion (the Court doubts that, as a matter of law, it is possible for an action to be “concurrently grossly negligent, careless, reckless, violent, willful and wanton”.
The Court therefore orders that the complaint be redrafted to conform to Rule 8 by stating adequate facts that, if proved, would entitle Plaintiff to relief.
It hopes that, in the course of redrafting, Plaintiff’s counsel will take a vigorous blue pencil to the original, removing irrelevant material and a substantial proportion of the adjectives. The Court expects that in the redrafted Complaint, if alternative theories are being pursued, the Complaint will make that clear.
The Complaint, at a minimum, also needs to indicate which causes of action are being alleged against which defendant or defendants.
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff shall file an Amended Complaint no later than April 15, 2014. If Plaintiff fails to comply with this order, the Court will grant Defendants’ Rule 12(b) Motion to Dismiss.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting the Alternative Motion for More Definite Statement.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying the Motion to Strike without prejudice.
Effective April 15, 2014 new civil rules and forms are in effect for managing cases moving to trial. Be sure to review the new Ci"
~~~~~~
My summary:
Basically the court rejects Dina's complaint vs. Jonah, telling her that her complaint is incomplete, full of unnecessary, irrelevant adjectives and allegations unsubstantiated by any evidence and wants her to rewrite another complaint with actionable causes specified and to include appropriate, reasonable premises.
In particular the court found that the complaint alleging Zahau as having "violent propensities" is
UNSUPPORTED by any factual findings and wonders with BEMUSEMENT (aka laughter) what "REGULAR CHILD DUTIES" are and how actions can be simultaneously "reckless and negligent" yet "willful and wanton".
In other words, Dina once again,
exaggerates, hyperbolizes, goes to ELABORATE LENGTHS with UNFOUNDED, INVALID CLAIMS WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE in the complaint against Jonah (and indirectly against Rebecca of causing injuries to Max). Of significance, such ELABORATE EXAGGERATED ACTIONS were also found at the crime scene of Rebecca's murder. Recall the rope-bindings of hands behind back, rope binding of feet, rope dragged to bed and over visible courtyard balcony railing, gag, noose, nudity, crazy 3rd person message painted on door, multiple paintbrushes, multiple knives, etc.